Kerala Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Geetha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2780; II(2005)DMC286; 2005(2)KLT407
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can D.N.A. Finger Printing test report Issued from the D.N.A. Finger Printing & Diagnostic Centre, Ministry of Science and Technology, Hyderabad, which is a Central Government undertaking be admitted in evidence without examining the Expert in Court This is the main question that I have to answer in this case.2. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 132 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- to her child. According to her the 2nd respondent herein is the father of the child. They allegedly developed illicit intimacy while she was working as housemaid in his house and in their illicit relationship the child was born to her. 2nd respondent did not take care of the child and he neglected and refused to maintain the child. Hence the claim.3. The alleged father/2nd respondent denied paternity. The petitioner therefore took steps to get paternity determined by D.N.A. Finger Printing. Blood samples of the child and...
Raman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT239
M. Ramachandran, J.1. When O.P. No. 20479 of 2002 had come up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader had brought to the attention of the Court a judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 105 of 1992, where it had been held that a full time Sweeper as on 7.4.1970 working in a Panchayat is not entitled to continue in service till attainment of the age of 60. The claim urged in O.P. No. 20479 of 2002 was that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years, as authorised by Rule 60(b) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, since he was in service as a last grade servant as onO.P.Nos. 13224 of 1998, 3690/99 & 20479/2002. Decided on 17th March, 2005.7.4.1970. The learned Single Judge had found that the decision in O.P. No. 105/92 might have to be examined with particular reference to certain other rules and there was possibility of recognition of the claims as highlighted in the later Original Petition. The said Original Petition was therefore refer...
Chandra Naik Vs. Paivalikke Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT843
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The writ petitioner is the President of Paivalikke Grama Panchayat, under orders to be unseated vide, the decision of the Munsiff in O.P.(Election) No. 13/2003 on the ground that he is disqualified to contest the election to the office of the President of the Panchayat which is reserved to the Scheduled Tribe community. He ceased to belong to Scheduled Tribe as per the notification dated 8.1.2003 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002. The 'Maratti' community to which the writ petitioner belonged was removed from the list of Scheduled Tribes. He was an elected member of the Panchayat from the reserved constituency for the Scheduled Tribes i.e., Ward No. 9 prior to the above said law. All the same, despite the deletion of the Maratti community from the category of Scheduled Tribes, the post of the President still stood reserved for the Scheduled Tribes vide notification No. 315/2000 dated 28.7,2000. The then President of the Panchay...
The Central Intelligence Officer Vs. the Commissioner of Inquiry (Mara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2944; 2005(2)KLT927
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. W.A. No. 518 of 2004 is filed by the Joint Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Trivandrum challenging an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.2.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 6259 of 2004 which was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P1 notice by which he was called upon 'to produce all reports received or collected by him for the period from December, 2001 to 2.5.2003 in connection with the Marad Incidents' and also Ext.P2 order of the Commission of Inquiry (Marad Incidents) dated 16.2.2004 by which the Commission of Inquiry had rejected the privilege claimed by the petitioner-appellant under Sections 123 arid 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and directed him to produce the documents ordered to be produced under Ext.P1 in that Writ Petition.2. W. A.No. 628 of 2004 is filed by the Director General of Police and three others challenging the final judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No. 5006 of 2004. That Writ ...
Managing Trustee, Arya Vaidya Sala Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: [2005]141STC142(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. This batch of original petitions, where the petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, have come up for consideration before us. The leading case is stated to be O.P. No. 6040 of 1999. Although four earlier original petitions also were pending when the above original petition had been filed, considering the general issue involved, viz., as to whether the assessment orders issued by the Sales Tax Department were sustainable, the reference came to be made. Demand notices on such assessments had been issued and such demands included surcharge under the Surcharge Act and turnover tax. The petitioner has been claiming exemption from payment of sales tax for the relevant years, and had invited our attention to the notifications, which formed the foundation of the claims and their applicability. Advertence had also been made to a number of decisions, where the petitioner itself was a party, as the issue relating to their c...
J.P. Raju Vs. Asstt. Cit, Special Circle, Division 1, Thiruvananthapur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN500(Ker)
Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for lorries and taxi. It is seen that depreciation of Rs. 1,86,891 claimed by the assessee on lorries owned and operated by him was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that assessee did not maintain any books of account, but returned income from lorry business only on estimation basis. In fact, it is seen from the records that assessee returned net income from lorry business at the rate of Rs. 750 per month for one truck and at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month for another truck and at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per month from taxi service. On a net income of Rs. 69,000 the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,89,891 and computed a net loss of Rs. 82,490. The assessee claimed exemption of income towards share received from partnership firms. In the assessment...
Divisional Railway Manager Vs. West Coast Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker225; 2005(2)KLT734
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 Order dated 23rd July, 2004 passed in A.R.No. 51/2003, an order issued on an Arbitration Request made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.2. Notice before admission was ordered in this matter. Respondents have entered appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The writ petitioner, the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Southern Railway, Palakkad, acting on behalf of the Railways, entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent herein whereby the 1st respondent agreed to undertake the work of 'transportation of 52 P.S.C. Sleepers from the Bommidi Sleeper Factory, unloading at site, and spreading near Track between K.M. 393.87 and 411.737'. The total value of the work was Rs. 19,33,295/-. It is stated that the writ petitioner terminated the contract at the risk and costs of the 1st respondent as per an order ...
Gracy Vs. Intelligence Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT168; [2005]141STC309(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed by various Railway officials challenging penalty orders issued by the Intelligence Officers of Sales Tax Department under various provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter called the 'KGST Act'. Penalty levied is either under Section 45A, 29A(4) or Section 45B of the KGST Act on the allegation of evasion of sales tax in respect of goods transported through Railways. All the Writ Petitions except OP 18234 of 1999 were posted for hearing on 9.6.2004. Sri.K.V. Sadananda Prabhu, appeared and argued for petitioners - Railway officials, and Sri.Raju Joseph, Special Government Pleader appeared and argued for the respondents. However, all those O.Ps. were again posted along with OP 18234 of 1999 on 10.12.2004 and counsel were again heard. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders under challenge and the circumstances under which those orders were issued, which are discussed below, I feel the o...
U.B.C. Vs. Govarthanam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas506(Ker); 2005(2)KLT461
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Would it be proper for this Court to entertain Writ Petitions to quash the proceedings of a Subordinate Court under the superintendence of another High Court? This question has come up for consideration in the background of the following facts.2. Appellants are accused in Calendar Case No. 388 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu and the respondent is the complainant in that case. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. First accused is a partnership firm having its office at Ernakulam in the State of Kerala. Other accused are residents of Ernakulam, They filed W.P.(C) No. 19816 of 2004 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the complaint in the above calendar case. Writ Petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint are false, the entire episode had taken place at Ernaku...
Harikishnan Vs. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker220; 2005(2)KLT488
ORDERK.M. Joseph, J.1. Does a Caveat Petition lie in regard to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is the question to be answered in this petition. The petitioner has filed this Caveat O.P. under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contents of the petition would show that the caveator claims notice of any appeal or other proceedings filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or against the order in E.P. No. 121/04 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. The High Court Registry has noted a defect, namely that the order of the StateUnnumbered Caveat O.P. of 2004. Decided on 15th March, 2005.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not appealable before the High Court. It is further stated that a Caveat O.P. is not maintainable against the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this objection, the matter was brought before this Court. The petitioner who argued in person woul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »